In my personal opinion, one of the most concerning trends in zoos is the increasingly homogenized nature of their collections. It's really unfortunate that so many rare and intriguing species are being phased out of zoos or are losing holders in favor of more common species. I'm really wondering what other zoochatter's thoughts are on this issue and any solutions you can think of to reverse this trend. I firmly believe that this trend is detrimental to the zoo industry, and would love it if people can think of solutions.
How To Combat An Increasing Homogenization Amongst Zoo Collections?
- Thread starter 15399
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homogenization
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that this is actually true, and think that the number of spp kept is larger than ever...
A few solutions I could think of-
1. The AZA putting maximums on the number of institutions that can participate in a given SSP. By limiting how many zoos can keep a specific species, the AZA can essentially force an increase in diversity- as institutions would need to get new species to replace ones they aren't able to keep. For instance, if the AZA puts a limit on 30 institutions keeping red pandas, you would see an increase in other small carnivores in facilities unable to keep red pandas.
2. An AZA-EAZA Merger- this might not create any new programs and would be difficult to pull off due to CITES rulings, but if these two institutions merged their SSP programs, each region would see more diversity in their collections due to species only kept in one of the two regions currently.
3. Disney- a lot of animals become popular due to movies and pop culture. Disney might be part of this solution by choosing rarer species to be featured in their movies, as opposed to meerkats (Lion King), sloths (Zootopia), etc.
4. Bans on single-species Exhibits for certain popular animals- this has already been floated by the AZA with giraffes, but has never been enforced. By not allowing institutions to keep giraffes, plains zebras, or other over-represented popular species in single species Exhibits then you can create an increase of rarer hoofstock being mixed with these popular species. Obviously this won't work with all species, but would for most herbivores.
1. The AZA putting maximums on the number of institutions that can participate in a given SSP. By limiting how many zoos can keep a specific species, the AZA can essentially force an increase in diversity- as institutions would need to get new species to replace ones they aren't able to keep. For instance, if the AZA puts a limit on 30 institutions keeping red pandas, you would see an increase in other small carnivores in facilities unable to keep red pandas.
2. An AZA-EAZA Merger- this might not create any new programs and would be difficult to pull off due to CITES rulings, but if these two institutions merged their SSP programs, each region would see more diversity in their collections due to species only kept in one of the two regions currently.
3. Disney- a lot of animals become popular due to movies and pop culture. Disney might be part of this solution by choosing rarer species to be featured in their movies, as opposed to meerkats (Lion King), sloths (Zootopia), etc.
4. Bans on single-species Exhibits for certain popular animals- this has already been floated by the AZA with giraffes, but has never been enforced. By not allowing institutions to keep giraffes, plains zebras, or other over-represented popular species in single species Exhibits then you can create an increase of rarer hoofstock being mixed with these popular species. Obviously this won't work with all species, but would for most herbivores.
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I'm quite concerned about this trend in zoos too.
I think that one of the causes of the rarer species being phased out may be down to what Carl Jones has termed "institutional fatigue" towards more challenging species.
Last edited:
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
As Jurek7 says above, I don't think this is a 'problem' which actually exists...
let alone needs to be dealt with, or 'solved'.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
They do seem to bring in some very unusual species to zoos in those countries.
All that @Jurek7 said is that it isn't a problem in Czechia or Poland. In many countries in the world, this is an accurate trend happening in zoos, whether or not you believe it to be a problem is a different story. The AZA has decreased the amount of SSPs on a yearly basis and have been phasing out numerous species, particularly hoofstock and birds.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
What I do or do not believe, does not make you correct.
There is a whole World outside the US - just look on ZooTierListe and see what is kept in Europe...
Whether it is a worldwide trend or not, it is most certainly a trend in some parts of the world, and it is still valuable to discuss the ways to combat homogenization in the countries it is a trend.
I would argue that while we have seen declines in mammal species, their are more species of reptile, amphibian, and fish kept in captivity in the U.S. now than probably any time in history. And even if we look at mammals their are still going to be 60+ managed populations of ungulates, 50 primate species, and so on. This discussion in my opinion is kind of blown out of proportion all the time, with the focus being ungulates (which yes will have less species in zoos, but still 25% of species will be managed in North American zoos).
My main concern with ungulates is that most of these programs are being managed by a handful of large institutions (The Wilds, San Diego, Saint Louis, Bronx, SCBI, etc.) and a large portion of the public won't see ungulates at their local zoos. With so many ungulates facing conservation concern, it would be nice if all zoos prioritized keeping at least a couple of species that aren't zebra/giraffe. I'll just look at my local zoos, for instance:
- Capron Park Zoo hasn't kept any non-domestic ungulates since its last Warty pig died. Previously it also held Muntjac (until 2016), and various other ungulates prior to 2003.
- Buttonwood Park Zoo keeps bison and Pudu, the latter being a new addition to the zoo.
- Roger Williams is phasing out most of its ungulates (Aoudad, Bison, Zebra, Wildebeest, Watusi, Babirusa, Pronghorn) while keeping giraffes, takin, and red River hogs and phasing in moose and bighorn sheep.
- Franklin Park Zoo still keeps two Zebra species, wildebeest, red river hog, giraffe, and Baird's tapir- but got rid of bongo in the last few years.
- Stone Zoo maintains a group of Chacoan peccary and a group of markhor- although their number of markhor has been dwindling.
Someone living in my general area will soon have very little exposure to ungulates in an AZA zoo. This is very concerning as these are under-appreciated species and some of them are amongst the world's most endangered. If we want people to care about saving all animals, they need to have exposure to all animals- which includes having all AZA facilities manage at least a couple of hoofstock species.
I have seen a bit of what you’ve mentioned regarding ungulate/hoofstock collections here in my home state of California. Having been a member to the LA Zoo, San Diego Zoo and Safari Park, we have quite a large number of these species. I do agree that it can be concerning as to decrease of certain species such as ungulates/hoofstock but I do echo the same opinion as @nczoofan in regard about seeing an increase of reptiles/amphibians/fish collections. I think typically these species are seen as mostly a child’s obsession which is why some exhibits that host these species appear to be child friendly for the most part, example the LAIR at the LA Zoo and Reptile Walk at San Diego Zoo.
I do wish that certain species would have re-established populations here in the states such as how bison and saiga used to be kept at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park. Yet it should always come down to what species can be properly taken care of at any facility. Another factor contributing to the diminished quantities of hoofstock could be due to popularity. I somewhat see that hoofstock in a similar light to reptiles and amphibians where they are beautiful to look at but aren’t too charismatic when compared to other popular animals. I don’t mind staying out for an hour by the Kilima Point at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park to see their many species mingling with one another and take plenty of photos I do.
We do have species specific facilities here such as the International Crane Foundation or Tracy’s Aviary, it wouldn’t so much make sense to necessarily add any other species that may not fit with the collection or can’t be cared for as they should be.
As for the AZA, I’m not aware that they can actually enforce what species any given zoological institution can actually keep unless there is some red tape placed by the governing bodies regarding animal transactions.
Long story short, I do feel the same sentiment that seeing homogenization of collections can appear to be a disservice to zoos yet we have seen some increases in other areas as well so it’s a delicate balance. Personally I actually love seeing every single animal when I visit these places and look forward to learning more about any animals.
I do think that the US is being more homogenized but I don't think that it is as bad as Japan where the hoof stock variety is diminished and populations of rarer animals is very small to the point which they are in their 11th hour. Then again, the average zoo visitors don't care too much about hoof stock no matter how beautiful or cute they could be because there will always be animals that the guests will find "cuter" or "more beautiful" even amongst hoofstock.
I agree facilities like Tracy/National Aviaries shouldn't add ungulates, unless its something like adding a chevrotain to a large Aviary. I think you're right in that the AZA can't enforce what species a zoo keeps, but they can certainly hold a lot of influence in deciding what species zoos focus on and it would be nice to see ungulates get a lot more attention.
As for reptiles and amphibians, there probably are more now than ever before, and I think that's a great trend. I'd still like to see an increase in endangered amphibian species, and especially increading the amount of zoos keeping amphibians on Exhibit, as opposed to just behind the scenes. An increase in freshwater chelonians would also be a nice inclusion.
@Neil chace I do agree with you that it would nice to see an increase of ungulate species again, I’ve been really obsessed with ungulates and birds ever since I started doing zoo photography and they always excite me.
One way I can see them increase popularity of unpopular species such as ungulates is by doing mixed species exhibits but won’t having at least one very popular specie added into the mix. One exhibit I think about and plan to visit extensively for when I can is the Giants of the Savanna at the Dallas Zoo. Yes I’ve seen these species here in my home state but it’s how they are mixed that makes it all more worthwhile. I heard that it took quite a bit of practice when adding the elephants to their mixed species herd and it seems to pay off, although I have also heard that they aren’t always kept together at all times as well perhaps to give the elephants their alone time.
By having all these species interact with one another, it adds to intrigue and excitement. Especially young children whom have a lean towards learning about animals can truly appreciate and take it in a wonderful experience.
For the display of endangered amphibians, I also agree and one place that I’ve seen have a solid collection despite being small one is the Frogs exhibit at the Aquarium of the Pacific. I’ll be visiting in about a week but if I recall correctly, about half their amphibians were endangered specie but maybe that changed in the past year.
One way I can see them increase popularity of unpopular species such as ungulates is by doing mixed species exhibits but won’t having at least one very popular specie added into the mix. One exhibit I think about and plan to visit extensively for when I can is the Giants of the Savanna at the Dallas Zoo. Yes I’ve seen these species here in my home state but it’s how they are mixed that makes it all more worthwhile. I heard that it took quite a bit of practice when adding the elephants to their mixed species herd and it seems to pay off, although I have also heard that they aren’t always kept together at all times as well perhaps to give the elephants their alone time.
By having all these species interact with one another, it adds to intrigue and excitement. Especially young children whom have a lean towards learning about animals can truly appreciate and take it in a wonderful experience.
For the display of endangered amphibians, I also agree and one place that I’ve seen have a solid collection despite being small one is the Frogs exhibit at the Aquarium of the Pacific. I’ll be visiting in about a week but if I recall correctly, about half their amphibians were endangered specie but maybe that changed in the past year.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I really don't see what you mean by Japan and homogenization.
If anything there are some real rarities in terms of exotics within Japanese collections (though whether they actually need to be within zoos there is another matter entirely) : volcano rabbit, African forest elephants, aye-ayes, tarsiers, Eastern bamboo lemur, Tasmanian devil , shoebill, Javan and Sunda slow loris, Senegal bushbaby, Douc langur, Chinese pangolin, short beaked echidna, lesser Antillean iguana, Galapagos land iguana etc.
Then there are native endemic species like the Ryuku and Bonin flying foxes, Tsushima leopard cat, Amami jay, Japanese squirrel, Japanese flying squirrel, Amami rabbit, Japanese serow, Japanese marten, Japanese badger, Japanese mole, Japanese field mouse, Japanese pippistrelle, Japanese giant salamander, copper pheasant, Japanese boobok, Japanese woodpecker, Ryuku leaf turtle etc. that are seldom if ever seen outside the country.
I'm not sure if this is representative of all facilities, but from my experience aquariums tend to have much better amphibian Exhibits than zoos. I was really impressed with the amphibian Exhibits at National Aquarium and Mystic also has a decent amphibian collection, albeit being located in a secluded part of the aquarium.
I agree that mixed species exhibits are a good way to improve hoofstock diversity in zoos and I would love to see more zoos try harder to create unique mixed species exhibits as a means of increasing diversity.
I think that makes sense since aquariums tend to have much more temperature controlled environments as well as LSS(life support systems) for their aquatic life which may also be fruitful for amphibious animals too
The exotic rarities are not sustainable even if they are a breeding population. Most of them are primates so their genetic diversity cannot be helped due to biosecurity laws. I also wouldn't count the rare reptiles because I recall iZoo having basically a monopoly on them rather than cooperating with JAZA zoos to help populate the species.
Importation of primates, hoof stock, rabies vectors, farm birds and relatives is restricted enough to almost stop zoos from importing new species. For example, as of now primates can only be imported from 7 countries (USA, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Guyana, Vietnam, and Suriname) and nowhere else. And from those countries a notification to the quarantine services has to be made 40-70 days before the animal is imported followed by a 30 day quarantine which does sound like a lot of bureaucracy for a lot of zoos to deal with. The only way I see a foreign primate being added to a Japanese collection is if the animal is found and confiscated in customs.
I don't know about how tough CITES is enforced in Japan since there were loopholes exploited by loris smugglers, but it does seem to be discouraging zoos from replacing animals not covered by the biosecurity laws such as maned wolf and ocelot. The only exception I know for this is the cheetahs imported to Chiba from Europe along with Asian elaphants that are obtained through sister city relationships.
Even if there are brokers and companies that are able to bring in rare animals such as tayras, ratels, and sand cat, those animals get snagged by questionable breeding mills before any JAZA zoo shows interest in those animals (assuming that they are interested).
There's also the invasive species laws which add extra bureaucracy for zoos that want to display animals that are listed as invasive or potentially invasive (listed animals include every animal under the genuses Macaca and Cervus go good luck conserving endangered macaques and deer).
Native animals are cool and all but native endangered species aren't as easy to obtain to my knowledge which is why most endangered species aren't kept in more than 5 zoos. I don't think they compensate the loss of "rarities" that easily, but that's just me. And there's also the average visitor who would rather see the ABCs rather than endemic fruit bats.
This results a considerably sad (or at least sad in my opinion) picture in a first world country that has a lot of zoos. Animals commonly kept in the west such as sloth bear, maned wolf, and gemsbok are gone for good. Most remaining animals such as addax, sulawesi macaque, and gorilla have a considerably unsustainable population.
The situation in America, as much as I want to rant about it, is clearly much more better than what Japanese zoos face. But then again I am not Japanese nor have I been in Japan long enough, so someone from Japan such as @FrancoiseLangur might know the great picture better than me.
Japanese aquariums in the other hand don't seem to face the fate Japanese zoos do.